On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:21:03PM +0000, Sami Kerola wrote:
> On 6 January 2014 13:08, Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:55:08PM +0000, Sami Kerola wrote:
> >> Year was left signed because someone said it might be interesting to
> >> know pre-year-zero outputs. After a bit research the pre-zero year
> >> calendars are theoretical construct, mostly because agreement in
> >
> > but the code is:
> >
> > #define SMALLEST_YEAR 1
> >
> > if (ctl.req.year < SMALLEST_YEAR)
> > errx(EXIT_FAILURE, _("illegal year value: use positive integer"));
>
> Hi Karel,
>
> That is correct right now. If negative years are allowed to be used
> I'm sure bug reports will follow. The leap year printouts are
> obviously wrong.
>
> >> Meanwhile the big year test is clearly broken. I recon there should be
> >> a version for various sizes of INT_MAX tests, and depending how large
> >> values are supported by system corresponding tests are ran.
> >
> > INT_MAX is the same everywhere, all you need is to remove arch
> > specific "long" from the code and use strtos32_or_err() to parse the
> > year number.
> >
> > (Well, I guess that 2147483647 years is enough :-)
>
> Use of 32 bit int is indeed the easiest fix, and I'm all in favor of
> cutting the cal output there.
OK, I'm going to wait for the patch :-)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
